Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...

Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 135

Preliminary communication
UDC 65.012.4:005.731

Manager’s decision-making in organizations –

empirical analysis of bureaucratic
vs. learning approach*
Eva Bolfíková1, Daniela Hrehová2, Jana Frenová3

Abstract
The paper is focused on the study of manager’s decision-making with respect to the
basic model of learning organization, presented by P. Senge as a system model of
management. On one hand, the empirical research was conducted in connection
with key dimensions of organizational learning such as: 1. system thinking,
2. personal mastery, 3. mental models, 4. team learning, 5. building shared vision
and 6. dynamics causes. On the other hand, the research was connected with the
analysis of the bureaucratic logic of decision-making process, characterized by
non-functional stability, inflexibility, individualism, power, authority and hierarchy,
centralization, vagueness, fragmentariness. The objective of the research was to
analyse to what extent manager’s decision–making is based on bureaucratic tools
or organizational learning in either complex problem-solving or non-problem-
solving decision-making. (MANOVA, method of the repeated measure, inter-
subject factor – situation: 1. non-problematic, 2. problematic). The conclusion of
analysis is that there are significant differences in character of solving of problem
situation and non-problem situation decision-making: the bureaucratic attributes
of decision-making are more intensive in problematic situations while learning
approach is more actual in non-problematic situations. The results of our analysis
have shown that managers who apply the learning organization attributes in their
decision-making. are more successful in problem-solving.
Key words: organizational learning, manager’s decision making, bureaucracy
JEL classification: D73, D83

*
Received: 10-02-2009; accepted: 12-05-2010
1
PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Pavol Jozef Šafárik in Košice, Faculty of Public
Administration, Department of Social Studies, Popradská 66, 041 32 Košice, Slovak Republic.
Scientific affiliation: organizational theory, chaos and complexity in organizations, theories of
public administration, bureaucracy, social justice, empirical analyses in organizations. Phone:
+42 1055 7883632-34. E-mail: eva.bolfikova@upjs.sk
2
PhD, Assistant Professor, Technical University in Košice, Department of Social Sciences, Vyso­ko­
školská 4, 040 01 Košice, Slovak Republic. Scientific affiliation: management, marketing, business
ethics, ethic, communication. Phone: +42 1903 147287. E-mail: daniela.hrehova@tuke.sk
3
MSc Lecturer, The University of Presov, Faculty of Management, Námestie legionárov 3,
080 01 Prešov, Slovak Republic. Scientific affiliation: management, staff training, projects.
Phone: +42 1905 902083. E-mail: frenovajana@centrum.sk
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
136 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

1. Introduction
Analysis of different types of decision-making within organizations (public
administration and “business” sector) is a part of the great project VEGA 1/3589/06,
aimed at studying the post - bureaucratic systems of an organization.
The organizational theory where organizational learning has its key position, applies a
set of approaches that are opposite to bureaucratic mechanisms within organizations.
Methodological base for the issues of organizational learning is the book of C. Argyris
and D. Schön: “Organizational Learning” (1978), that is followed by many authors
(Hahn, Doh and Bunyaratavej, 2009, Vendelø, 2009, Easterby-Smith, 2009, Cha,
Pingry and Thatcher, 2008, Hult, et all. 2000, Barrados and Mayne, 1999, Daft and
Huber, 1987, Dekker and Hansen, 2004, Dery, 1983, Fry and Griswold, 2003, Garvin,
1993, Huber, 1991, Levit and March, 1988, West 1994, Fiol and Lyles, 1985 ...).
Concept of learning organization is derived from systems theory. Study of dynamic
systems as living systems (e.g. organizations) (Hickson III, 1973, Almaney, 1974,
Peery, Jr., 1975, Vancouver, 1996, Tracy, 1993) leads to organizational theory
orientation characterized by the ability of organization to process feedback effectively
(need to learn) in order to close the gap between the current state and the desired
state. “Organizations are expected to value information, to be able to learn from the
past and to adapt to changing circumstances.” …“Learning in organizations relates to
how the organization deliberately changes and adapt over time in terms of structures,
functions, values, attitudes and behaviour.” (Barrados and Mayne, 2003:88).
Organizational learning is studied as one of the most preferred concept of post-
bureaucracy (Heckscher and Donnelon, 1994), that is often connected with other
organizational attributes: research of supervisory span (Gittel, 2001, Josserand, 2006),
innovation (Wolfe, 1994, Sta. Maria and Watkins, 2003), performance (Rahmandad,
2008), etc. It is also connected with organizational areas related to the organizational
learning – for example Huber (1991) has elaborated four constructs integrally
linked to organizational learning (and subconstructs): 1. knowledge acquisition, 2.
information distribution, 3. information interpretation and 4. organizational memory.
The question “what is a learning organization” represents a challenge for researchers,
but “general consensus in the learning organization literature is, that learning at
the organizational level is a prerequisite for successful organizational change and
performance” (Sta. Maria and Watkins, 2003:494, Wenbin and Hongyi, 2009). A
number of theoretical and empirical approaches have been applied in the analyses
of a learning organisation by many authors (Garvin, 1993, Lundberg, 1995, Watkins
and Golembiewski, 1995, Hendry, 1996).
To summarise the literature on learning organizations is very difficult because of
conceptual differences. However, there are four distinguished orientations that can be
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 137

identified: 1. the behaviourist orientation (the behaviourist movement in psychology

applied experimental procedures to study behaviour in relation to the environment),
2. the cognitive orientation (where behaviourists studied environment, analysis of
the Gestalt drawings applied to the individual’s mental processes. In order words,
they were concerned with cognition), 3. the humanist orientation (in this orientation
the basic concern is human growth), 4. the social/situational orientation (it is not
so much focused on learners acquiring structures or models for understanding
the world, but on their participation in frameworks that have structures. Learning
involves participation in a community practice).
Watkins and Marsick (1996), for example, suggest seven imperatives, that indicate
design of a learning organization: 1. creating continuous learning opportunities, 2.
promoting inquiry and dialogue, 3. encouraging collaboration and team learning, 4.
establishing systems to capture and share learning, 5. empowering people towards
a collective vision, 6. connecting the organization with its environment, 7. applying
a leader’s model and supporting learning. Lipshitz and Popper (2000:348) proposed
the useful concept of organizational learning mechanisms (organizational learning
values), using both a structural and cultural elements: 1. inquiry (persisting in a
line of inquiry until a satisfactory understanding is achieved), 2. integrity (giving
and receiving full and accurate feedback without defending oneself and others),
3. transparency (exposing one’s thoughts and actions to others in order to receive
feedback), 4. issue orientation (focusing on the relevancy of information to the
issues regardless of the social standing of the recipient or source), 5. accountability
(assuming responsibility both for learning and for implementing lessons learned).
Senge’s model (1990) of learning in organizations consists of five disciplines
(dimensions): 1. system thinking, 2. mental models, 3. personal mastery, 4. team
learning, 5. building shared vision.
In the last years, learning organizations literature has been focused on studying
many vital problems: complexity of organizational learning (Rahmandad, 2008),
innovation in organization (Tran, 2008, Zhao and de Pablos, 2009, Wu, Ma and Xu,
2009), characteristics of learning organizations (de Villiers, 2008), impact quality
management system on organizational learning and process perormances (Lambert
and Ouedraogo, 2008), network perspective on organizational learning (Pahor,
Škerlavaj and Dimovski, 2008), organizational learning and job satisfaction (Chiva
and Alegre, 2008, Dirani, 2009), learning organization and organizational capacity
to adapt to the task environment (Carmeli and Sheaffer, 2008), decision-making in
learning organizations (Beauchamp-Akatova, 2009), new theoretical perspectives
(Holmqvist, 2009), governance learning (Schout, 2009, Zito, 2009), organizational
learning theory and research (Vendelø, 2009, Easterby, Li, and Bartunek, 2009,
Schilling and Kluge, 2009) and others.
The comparison of bureaucratic and participative systems has been made by Dovey
(1997:338). He considered the importance of influence of character of initial
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
138 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

situation to character of leadership. Bureaucracy was analysed in many monographs

and articles (Adler and Borys, 1996, Aiken, Bacharach and French, 1980, Bozeman
and McAlpine, 1977). Weber has characterized it as “purely technical superiority
over any other forms of organization” (Weber, 1948:214).
Decision-making within organizations, showing parameters or attributes of learning,
is characterized by distinctive effort to restrain the mechanisms of classical
bureaucratic systems. From this point of view, especially, the organizations of public
administration are known by high level of bureaucratization with all its negative
impacts as analyzed by several authors – Merton (1952), Selznick (1943), Crozier
(1964), Blau (1955) and others.
The main objective of our analysis is focused on decision-making mechanisms
or decision-making processes within organizations aiming at monitoring the
predominance of bureaucratic and learning attributes respectively, the structure
of the analysis relying on P. Senge’s model (1990). We could not find the relevant
information and published results of the research or analysis of a similar orientation,
although we believe they should exist.
The research problem in our analysis is connected with questioning to what measure
is managers’ decision-making process inclined either to classic bureaucratic, or
dynamic learning system in solving situations (comparison of problematic situations
and non-problematic ones).
Objectives of the research:
1. To identify the measure of inclination of managers in organizations to decision-
making in line with bureaucratic attributes respectively with parameters of
organizational learning.
2. To identify the measure and the character of differences in inclination of the
managers in organizations in line with bureaucratic attributes respectively
with parameters of organizational learning when solving a problematic and an
non-problematic situation.
The formulation of our hypothesis is a result of being aware of the natural tendencies
of employees in formal organizations to generally accepted processes or standard
behavioural models limited by rules (which is under the control connected with
using formal sanctions). Variability of “subordination” measure to these standards is
connected with the character of the solved tasks, situations, and problems. Considering
typical attributes of bureaucratic systems, characterized by non-functional stability,
inflexibility, individualism, power, authority and hierarchy, centralization,
vagueness, fragmentariness, we have assumed using of bureaucratic principles or
processes mainly in connection with events, tasks, problems which are solved less
successfully or unsuccessfully (problematic) that gain more precise features mainly
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 139

at determination of alternative model principles (defined by disciplines of learning

in P. Senge’s model) - learning system – with regard to its key attributes which we
usually connect with very effective problem and task solution i.e. with “situations
with happy ending” (non-problematic).

Central hypothesis:
We suppose that the attributes of the organizational learning in decision-making of
managers will be more attractive in non-problematic situation solving than in the
problematic situation solving.

2. Disciplines of organizational learning by P. Senge

1. System thinking – a shift in thinking: The essence of the discipline of system
thinking consists of shifting the thinking, where we do not observe the linear chain
of reason and effect any more, but we concentrate on the mutual context. We observe
the processes of change, not the immediate status. System thinking is the headstone
of all disciplines of a learning organization. All disciplines, as a matter of fact, relate
to a shift in thinking. System thinking is a discipline of perceiving integral parts,
where they appear as active participants directing the reality in which they exist, not
as helpless reactive persons. (Senge, 1990)
2. Personal mastery: According to Senge (1990) personal mastery means to approach
your own life as a creative work and to live creatively, not reactively. When personal
mastery becomes a discipline – activity integrated into our life, it embodies two basic
directions. First of them is a constant clearing of what is important to us, the second
one consists of unceasing learning how to perceive today’s reality in a clearer way.
Comparing visions (what we want) and the clear picture of the actual reality (where
we are with respect to what we want) creates what we call “the creative tension”.
Creative tension is induced by natural human tendency to seek for solutions. (Senge,
1990)
3. Mental models: Mental models can be a simple generalization or they can be
complex theories. The most important is to understand that they actively influence
the way we act. They influence what we see and therefore two people with different
mental models can describe the same situation in a different way, as they are focused
on different details. Inability to realize the mental models thwarted lots of efforts
spent on raising the system thinking. These models can hinder learning by conserving
outworn practice in organizations. On the other hand, they can speed up learning as
well. Recent research shows, that most mental models are systematically incorrect,
they miss important feedback relations, misinterpret the time delays and often focus
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
140 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

on factors that are visible and obvious but not necessarily of a major importance.
(Senge, 1990)
4. Building shared vision: Vision is not an idea. For a learning organization it has a
vital importance. While adaptive learning is possible even without a vision (mission),
creative learning occurs only if people try to achieve something that they really care
for. Most visions are the visions of individuals or groups, imposed on organizations.
Such missions lead to obedience and do not encourage anybody. Common mission
is a mission a lot of people are devoted to. It is the reflection of their personal vision
(mission). A learning organization cannot exist without a common mission, as without
any impulse to go for a goal, forces conserving the status quo will prevail within the
organization. A mission sets a goal that provokes respect. The eminence of the goal
forces to find new ways of thinking and acting. With common mission we can easier
detect our way of thinking. We are more ready to give up the established attitudes
and we can sooner and more effectively identify the personal and organizational
deficiency (Senge, 1990).
5. Team learning: Team achievements depend on excellence of the accomplished
work of individuals and on their mutual cooperation, on mutual co-ordination of
the team members who, then create one unit. Team learning is a process of tuning
and developing the ability of the team to create results, which are valued by its
members. Senge (1990) mentions three critical dimensions, which are inherent to
the team learning within an organization. Firstly there is the need of deep thoughts
about complex problems, when the teams have to learn how to use the potential of
several minds in such a way, that they will be more intelligent as one mind. The
second dimension is the need for innovative and coordinated activity. Excellent
teams develop operative trust, thanks to which every member of the team is aware of
the other ones and one can assume he/she will be acting in a way that complements
their activity. The third dimension is the position of the team members in face of
other teams. Most activities of the teams on higher positions are carried out by other
teams. In this way, a learning team supports the learning process within other teams
and instils them with the procedures and virtue of team learning (Senge, 1990).

3. Method and processing the data

Research methods – The Method UO-1 has been structured as a set of items in three
parts. The first part contained demographic characteristics. The other two parts
have been focused on monitoring the character of decision-making of the managers
in inclination to bureaucratic or to learning attributes in Situation No. 1, when a
solution of a problem had a positive conclusion (non-problematic) and in Situation
No. 2, when a solution of a problem had a negative conclusion (problematic).
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 141

The task of the respondent was to follow the instructions and to describe freely
one real situation, where he/she had to decide, with a successful conclusion (non-
problematic situation) and one situation, where the result of the decision was
negative or problematic (problematic situation). Referring to the described situations,
the respondents evaluated their decision-making procedure through the proposed
items, formulated as poling characteristics on a 7 degree scale, where the value 1
= procedures in learning organizations and the value 7 = bureaucratic procedures.
A set of operationalized items was identical for self-assessment in both described
situations.
Items intended for measuring the inclination of managers to learning or bureaucratic
ways of decision-making were formulated with respect to basic disciplines of
learning organizations: 1. system thinking, 2. personal mastery, 3. mental models, 4.
building shared vision 5. team learning when the attributes of bureaucracy are for the
purpose of this analysis perceived as contra-versions of learning attributes. For each
of the dimension – discipline, that can be viewed as indicators of learning systems -
6 operationalized items had been prepared. Apart from this, the dimension of casual
dynamics had been added to the original disciplines, aimed at observing some aspects
of the dynamics of decision-making – altogether 37 items for each situation. The
values of the Cronbach’s Alpha are – for the set of items of unproblematic situation:
0.85 and for the set of items of a problematic situation: 0.92.
Measured items of the method of the research (Scheme 1 in the appendix) are presented
also in the chapter of the results of analysis, in the tables, which show results of the
statistical empirical data processing.
Empirical data were processed by the procedures of descriptive statistics and
multidimensional analysis of variance (MANOVA) for repeated measures – intra-
subject factor SITUATION (1. non-problematic, 2. problematic). The dependent
variables were the items of the decision-making description, the independent
variables were the intra-subject factors. The STATISTICA 5.5. was used in the
processing of the empirical data.

4. Research sample
From the overall number of 138 respondents, 56.52% women and 43.48% men took
part in research survey. Demographic characteristics of the observed sample was
monitored through the identification marks: gender, age, education, working area
(whether public administration or “business sphere“).
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
142 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Table 1: Structure of research sample according to sex and age

- in percent of raw (%)
Age
Gender Together
21-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 over 60
Men 1.67 5.00 25.00 38.33 28.33 1.67 100.00
Women 5.13 10.26 20.51 48.72 15.38 0.00 100.00
Together 3.62 7.97 22.46 44.20 21.01 0.72 100.00

Source: authors

The structure of the research sample according to gender and age (Table 1) points
out to the fact, that by both genders the mostly represented category is the one from
41 to 50, by men it is 38.33% and by women even 48.72% (together 44.20%). By
men the second mostly represented age category is from 51 to 60 (28.33%) and the
third one is the age category from 31 to 40 (25%). By women it is the opposite, the
second most numerous category is the one from 31 to 40 (20.51%) and the third most
numerous is the category from 51 to 60 (15.38%). The least respondents by men
belong equally to the age category from 21 to 25 and to age category over 60 (both
groups 1.67%). By women the age category has no representation at all.

Table 2: Structure of research sample according to sex and working area

- in percent of raw (%)
Area
Gender Together
Public Administration Business
Men 30.00 70.00 100.00
Women 61.54 38.46 100.00
Together 47.83 52.17 100.00

Source: authors

The structure of the research sample according to gender and working area (Table 2)
points out, that while in the area of public administration (in our case territorial self-
government) there are “only” 30% men in leading positions, in the business sphere
as much as 70% of the leading position are taken by men. In public administration,
61.54% of women occupy the position of a manager within the observed sample had
been while in the business sphere the representation of women on leading position is
much lower – it is 38.46%.
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 143

Table 3: Structure of the research sample according to age and working

- in percent of raw (%)
Area
Age Together
Public Administration Business
21-25 0.00 100.00 100.00
26-30 54.55 45.45 100.00
31-40 25.81 74.19 100.00
41-50 57.38 42.62 100.00
51-60 55.17 44.83 100.00
over 60 100.00 0.00 100.00
Together 47.83 52.17 100.00

Source: Authors

The structure of the research sample according to age and working area (Table 3)
shows that within the observed sample in public administration (self-government)
there is no manager at the age from 21 to 25, while in the “business sphere” there is no
manager at the age over 60. The most distinctive differentiation is at the age category
from 31 to 40. Whilst in the “business sphere” the position of a manager is occupied
within the observed sample by up to 74.19% of the respondents, in self-government
it is only 25.81%. The other age categories are not so much differentiated.

5. Results
The observation of differences in character of decision-making of managers in
problematic situations (PS) and non-problematic (NPS) situations in individual
disciplines - attributes – of a learning organization brought in some interesting
findings. Mean score measured for individual dimensions of learning shows that the
measure of inclination to learning or bureaucracy is not definite.
Managers are willing to respect most principles of system thinking (F=8.87, p=0.00)
and team learning (F=6.22, p=0.01), rather in relation to solution NPS (M=2.75 and
M=2.70), than on solution PS (M=3.04 and M=2.95). Conversely significantly most
far to respondents are principles of mental models (M for NPS=4.13, M for PS=4.01)
and consequences dynamic (M for NPS=3.91, M for PS=3.85).
From the overall view, it is not possible to consider significant inclination of managers
to attributes of decision-making on the basis of learning principles. However, at most
disciplines, it is obvious that there is a vital potential to learning, which leads to
the assumption that the “bureaucratic spectrum” of decision-making character is not
used more often than the “learning” one.
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
144 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

As we cannot specify the character of the situation in more detail, so we cannot

specify the link between the mentioned attributes and the type of the situation.
Thus, we do not have the answer to whether, for example, the non-problematic
situation, i.e. a situation with “good endings” (solution) had been solved successfully
thanks to applying a higher degree of the mechanisms of learning or this is only
the context suggesting that in a relatively less problematic situations the managers
tend to act less rigidly compared to situations that are problematic, more demanding
in procedures of solving and process of decision-making. Room for answering the
questions, connected to implicate the character of the link between situation and
decision-making procedures can be developed in future research. The option where
the way of decision-making marks the final effect is more likely.

Table 4: Summary evaluation of manager’s inclination to attributes of learning

organization – differences between NPS and PS (MANOVA)

Mean
Attributes of a learning organization F p
NPS PS
System Thinking 8.87 0.00** 2.75 3.04
Personal Mastery 0.00 0.98 3.22 3.21
Mental Models 1.65 0.20 4.13 4.01
Casual Dynamics 0.56 0.46 3.91 3.85

Building Shared Vision 1.26 0.26 3.46 3.55

Team Learning 6.22 0.01** 2.70 2.95

Significant if p<0.01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors

System thinking shows mainly the ability of a manager to respect dynamics of a

problem in various relevant contexts with a possibility of solution variability. It
assumes awareness of participation and activity of all participants, demand for
complex solutions and also mutual impact of all involved employees during solution.

H1: We suppose, that the attributes of the organizational learning in decision-

making of managers in the discipline of the system thinking will be attractive in the
non-problematic situation solving rather than in the problematic situation solving.
According to the data stated in Table 5 inclination to learning processes is more
significant at solution NPS (M for items = from 2.37 to 2.99) than at solution PS (M
for items = from 2.73 to 3.36). The difference in inclination to attributes of learning
at solution NPS and PS has been discovered at 4 items out of 6. Most significant
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 145

difference in inclination to learning or bureaucracy is at respect of mutual impact in

solution process, F=15.87 and p=0.00 (M for NPS=2.47, M for PS=2.98).

Table 5: Assessment of inclination of managers to attribute of system thinking in

solving unproblematic (NPS) and problematic (PS) situations with no
regard to working area (MANOVA)
System thinking Mean
F p
Learning organization Bureaucracy NPS PS
It is important to monitor It is important to stick 0.38 0.54 2.80 2.91
what is the relation of problem intensively at solving the
being solved to the rest of problem itself only.
the environment, the whole
organization.
It is at the best to seek for It is at the best to seek for a 4.51 0.04* 2.88 3.25
a solution that takes into solution that applies solely to
account various relations, links the problem itself.
and connections within the
organization.
When solving a situation it is When solving a situation it is 0.02 0.89 2.97 2.99
important to keep in mind that important to keep in mind, that
the people around it are active the people around are mostly
and vigorous. helpless and can not handle
the solution of the situation by
themselves.
When solving a situation it is When solving a situation it 4.14 0.04* 2.37 2.73
always inevitable to understand is always inevitable to focus
the problem in a complex way. especially on the details.

Each solution has to be the Each solution has to be directed 5.16 0.02* 2.99 3.36
result of a mutual action of a unambiguously from the
manager on the employees and manager to the employees.
vice versa.
Seeking for solution has to be Seeking for solution has to 15.87 0.00** 2.47 2.98
the matter of mutual influence be the matter of one person,
of all who participate in it. as only the one has the
responsibility.
Significant if p<0.01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors

More significant difference has also been discovered at the item which shows
attitude of cooperation between a manager and employees (F=5.16 and p=0.02),
while in PS or in the situation with “bad end” (unsuccessfully solved) is significantly
lower measuring the inclination to learning (M=3.36) than in the situation which was
successfully solved and stated as an example of problem-free cause (M=2.99).
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
146 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Similar tendency in character of differences was discovered at the item which is

focused on monitoring various links and relations or concentration only on the
problem alone in bureaucratic version F=4.51 a p=0.04 (M for NPS=2.80, M for
PS=3.25) and also at the item which describes inclination to complex solutions or
emphasizing details in bureaucratic version F=4.14 and p=0.04 (M for NPS=2.37,
M for PS=2.73).
Stated tendency of decision-making character at managers is obvious also at other
two items but difference between NPS and PS solution is not significant.
The described findings – and directly data in Table 4 which offers overview of
total score for disciplines – show that assumption stated in H1 can be accepted as
acknowledged. It means that presented findings are overall in accordance with this
assumption. From the point of operationalized items is found a tendency relevant for
all items, in 4 out of 6 items there were differences at decision-making at NPS and
PS solution statistically significant.

Table 6: Assessment of the inclination of managers to the attribute of personal

mastery in solving unproblematic (NPS) and problematic situations (PS)
not regarding the working area (MANOVA)
Personal mastery Mean
F p
Learning organization Bureaucracy NPS PS
Each decision has to have a Each decision has primarily 0.90 0.35 2.89 3.04
positive impact also in more far to bring about instant
future. improvement of the situation.
Prime requisite of decision- In decision-making, especially 1.50 0.22 2.90 3.10
making is to inquire into the the visible effects and
real primary causes. externally clear situations have
to be taken into account.
The most effective decisions are The most effective solutions 1.20 0.27 3.94 3.76
the ones that count on delayed are the ones that count
effects and implications. on immediate effects and
implications.
Everybody, who makes Everybody, who makes 0.48 0.49 2.23 2.33
decisions, has to seek for decisions, has to have
capability and expertise in the predominance over the other
field. employees.
If somebody makes decisions If somebody makes decisions, 4.51 0.04* 3.50 3.14
he/she has to convince about he/she immediately has to find
what is important over and over out what is steadily the most
again. important.
Each decision-making is a Each decision-making is firstly 0.16 0.69 3.84 3.92
creative process and inventing about quick reaction on the
something new. incurred problems and events.
Significant if p<0.01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 147

The dimension of personal mastery is connected with the knowledge that each
solution has not only momentary effect in individual situation but has also affects
further processes, events in future development of system. It requires manager’s
ability to look “behind” the external display of a problem and understanding the
situation or a problem nature that moderates manager’s dominancy over other
solution participants (employees) at solving. Natural is continuous control of
procedure efficiency when problem solving is understood not as quick reaction on
occurred events but as a process that brings something new.
H2: We suppose, that the attributes of the organizational learning in decision-
making of managers in the discipline of personal mastery will be attractive in the
non-problematic situation solving rather than in the problematic situation solving.

Table 7: Assessment of the inclination of managers to the attribute of mental models

in solving unproblematic (NPS) and problematic situation (PS) with no
regard to working area
Mental models Mean
F p
Learning organization Bureaucracy NPS PS
Each problem arisen is to be Each problem arisen means 0.02 0.96 3.68 3.69
understood as an ally and an trouble for smooth workflow.
opportunity.
When making decisions it When making decisions it is 0.67 0.41 4.72 4.58
is inevitable to change the inevitable to preserve a stabile
circumstances around oneself working environment.
constantly.
Decision-making has to be Decision-making has to be 0.98 0.32 4.20 4.05
focused on permanent change focused on active support to
in routine order. routine order.
When making decisions it When making decisions it is 3.99 0.04* 3.28 3.58
is necessary to compare the inevitable to follow the goal set
goals set with the actual status under any circumstances.
constantly.
Decision-making is about Decision-making is mainly 5.54 0.02* 4.51 4.14
patience above all. about quick reaction to
situations and problems arisen.

To solve problems means to To solve problems means 6.09 0.01** 4.40 4.03
discover and to constantly to ensure efficient support
change the way of functioning and protection to the ways
accepted by everybody. of functioning accepted by
everybody.

Significant if p<0.01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
148 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

According to the data in Tab. 6 statistically significant differences were found only
at one item – it shows the need for continuous correction of solution procedures
(F=4.51, p=0.04), while the mean score shows the tendency which is opposite to
the overall picture of the researched inclination to learning or bureaucratic decision-
making procedures. Overall tendency shows higher measure of inclination to learning
principles in managing NPS solution than in CS solution. In this case conversely NPS
solution is less characterized by using of this attribute (M=3.50) than PS solution
(M=3.14). Differences at other items are not statistically important but mostly copy
the overall trend of decision-making of managers. Strong is connection of “bad end”
situation solutions and understanding of problem solution as a quick reaction to
the occurred situation (M=3.92) – with low sensitivity to innovative, creative and
developing potential of each problem and its solution.
The stated findings are in accordance with the assumption stated in H2 as long as
the tendency in the character of decision-making is concerned. Managers incline
mostly to attributes of learning in situations that were successfully solved. Since the
difference between the character of decision-making in NPS and PS situation is not
statistically important (overall in Table 4), this hypothesis cannot be approved.
The dimension of mental models is characterized by understanding a problem as an
opportunity (not annoyance) and decision-making as a process of actual conditions
change. It also implies using procedures that contribute to changes of a routine,
permanent control of dynamics of goal-setting and actual condition relations. It
favours patient, calm, negotiation, not quick decisions, and it is oriented to changes
of previous function procedures that used to be well-known to everyone.
H3: We suppose, that the attributes of the organizational learning in decision-
making of managers in the discipline of mental models will be attractive in the non-
problematic situation solving rather than in the problematic situation solving.
Mental models as attributes of the organizational teaching are being used even less
than the mean ones according to the data in Table 7. The tendency of the monitored
differences between the application of NPS and PS is not explicit. Overall direction of
manager’s decision-making character that shows higher measure to the inclination to
learning attributes in the case of NPS solution was obvious in this dimension only in
1 case out of 6 items. In the case of mental model discipline, it can be considered that
PS solution is more connected with using learning attributes (even when according
to the mean score it is medial) than NPS solution.
In NPS, the less preferred are especially the procedures that enable quick reaction to
adequate extent of patience (M=4.51), which means that the managers prefer such
decision-making procedures that are indeed quick, but do not cause a disturbance of
the stabilized models of behaviour (F=5.54, p=0.02). An effort to keep the generally
accepted standard procedures is obvious in case of solving PS situations (M=4.03) or
situations with unsuccessful effort for adequate solution (F=6.09, p=0.01). Significantly
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 149

at least acceptable for managers is possibility of working condition constant change as

direct consequence of their decisions in case of NPS solution (M=4.72).
The stated findings are obviously not in accordance with the assumption described
in H3. The converse trend is obvious. In the case of 2 out of 6 items, there is also
a statistically important difference in the character of manager’s decision-making.
The dimension which we have called “cause dynamic” originally was not included
in Senge’s discipline system. It was added in order to emphasize the extraordinary
dynamic of learning system and also as a support to the key learning attributes. It shows
that each decision-making has to inevitably respect possibility of external influences
and activation of some changes. Manager has to perceptively watch events that have
preceded the problem arising in case, when at first sight, they have nothing in common
with the problem. In this way, it is also possible to diagnose hidden relations and
unpredictable circumstances, and respect complexity of the solved problem. Cause
dynamic warns of the possibility of further problems arising as a consequence of the
character of decision-making and solution of original problem. Further important
attribute of learning in this dimension is knowledge that “at least visible things are
often the most important and everyone who participates in problem-solving knows well
and understands all relations at workplace (as a source of problem origin). A “silence
moment” is also important that often signals that real problems are usually “silent” and
are seldom expressed dramatically. More dramatic are consequences of such problems.
H4: We suppose that the attributes of the organizational learning in managers’
decision-making in the discipline of the casual dynamic will be attractive in the non-
problematic situation solving rather than in the problematic situation solving.
Table 8 shows the data gathered and measured with regard to “cause dynamics“,
which points to the mechanisms of distinct dynamics of the decision-making
processes. The tendency of differences between NPS and PS in application of these
mechanisms is ambiguous. In case of significant differences, the learning mechanisms
show up rather in the case of PS – it is the effort to respect the variability of options
for approaches and solutions. This effort is expressively less active in the case of PS.
Differences in character of decision-making according to the character of solved
situation are not big; statistically important are in the case of 2 out of 7 variables. It is
an attribute which shows possibility of further arising of problems as a consequence
of manager’s decisions when F=9.40 and p=0.00. According to the mean score, it is
obvious that in case of a positive solution, course managers do not admit easily that
further problems can occur (M for NPS=4.99 M for PS=4.55). Similarly very low
inclination to learning (rather refusal) has been found at the attribute that requires that
each responsible participant in problem solving is well acquainted with the character
of all workplace relations (as a source of cause dynamic). In the case of NPS solution
M=4.25 rather than in the case of PS solution start to consider (often hypocritically)
providing of information about workplace relations for all responsible participants
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
150 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

(M for PS=3.78). In case of these two attributes – variables the tendency is converse
in decision-making character of managers than central tendency.
Other items of this dimension do not show statistically important differences in
character of decision-making at NPS and PS solution; however a view on mean score
shows more closeness to central tendency.
The key for the results assessment of statistical processing at H4 verification is
statistically significant results, and hence, the assumed trend of the character of
decision -making in relation to the set hypothesis cannot be confirmed.

Table 8: Assessment of inclination of managers to the attribute of casual dynamics

in solving unproblematic (NPS) and problematic situations (PS) with no
regard to working area (MANOVA)
Casual dynamics Mean
F p
Learning organization Bureaucracy NPS PS
When making decisions it is When making decisions 0.04 0.85 3.44 3.47
necessary to be constantly open it is necessary to function
to influence from others. independently and to lock out
any external influence.
From a long-term perspective From a long-germ perspective 2.39 0.12 2.98 3.19
it is advisable to encourage it is advisable not to invoke any
situations which can bring unnecessary changes.
about some changes.
Before making a decision it is Searching for events that do 0.45 0.50 3.75 3.86
necessary to search for events no have a direct relation to the
that seemingly do not have any problem being solved is a waste
relation to solving the problems. of time.
With each decision it is It is not advisable to burden 9.40 0.00** 4.99 4.55
necessary to thing about the decision-making with
the possibility of problems thoughts about the possibility of
emerging. problems emerging.
It is true, that for a solution of a It is true, that for a solution of 0.11 0.74 4.01 4.06
problem the least visible signs a problem the important events
and events are usually the most are the ones most visible and
important. obvious.
It is of importance that each It is of importance that the one 7.72 0.01** 4.25 3.78
person participating knows who makes decisions and has
and understands all links and the responsibility knows all links
relations on the workplace. and relations on the workplace.
Real problems are usually Real problems always come 0.24 0.63 3.96 4.04
hidden and silent and rarely out in their essence very
come out. dramatically.
Significant if p<0,01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 151

Building shared vision discipline significantly affects the way of organization goals
understanding and their reaching. We do not talk here about reaching goals but
completing mission or following the accepted vision. Rhetoric of learning systems is
in this way much gentler and in relation to goals more free. Goals are not inevitably
reached point but characteristic of way connected with key values in organization.
Building shared vision discipline shows that goals are important not only for
managers and “responsible ones” but that they are open for all employees. So are
goals and visions in organization understood as result of “searching and consent”
of all employees, not as necessity which is stated and it is necessary to respect –
necessity (obligation) is replaced here by choice possibility and contribution.
The way of reaching goals represents a path that works as a permanent creation
of “new” while bureaucratic path favours using already tired standard procedures
(regardless of specific situations). Important is permanent uncovering of personal
and organizational deficiencies and respect to traditional procedures of goal creation
recedes to more flexible missions, long-term planning recedes to fresh inspiration
and ideas.
H5: We suppose, that the attributes of the organizational learning in decision-making
of managers in the discipline of building the shared vision will be more attractive
in the non-problematic situation solving rather than in the problematic situation
solving.
The area of visions and goals (Table 9) is the key within an organization. Through
their character they can distinctively direct the way of organization functioning – to
post bureaucratic or bureaucratic direction. Tendency of differences between NPS
and PS are in this case directed to a greater preference of learning procedures in
case of solving NPS, in case of 3 mechanisms out of 6 they were significant. It
means that in vision and goal dimension, similar tendencies in character of manager
decision-making at problem solving were found indicating the overall picture of
the inclination to learning or bureaucratic attributes of decision-making. Most
significant differences in character of decision-making with regard to the solved
problem were found at “searching of methods” for reaching of goals (F=8.46 and
p=0.00). Inclination to learning attributes was in this case more significant at NPS
solution (M=2.86) than at PS solution (M=3.21).
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
152 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Table 9: Assessment of the inclination of managers to the attribute of building the

shared vision in solving unproblematic (NPS) and problematic situation
(PS) without regard to working area (MANOVA)
Building shared vision Mean
F p
Learning organization Bureaucracy NPS PS
Goals of the organization have Goals of the organization are 1.96 0.16 2.46 2.69
always to be open equally to all clear, understandable and
employees. important only for those, who
make the decisions within the
organization.
Employees can accept decisions Employees are obliged to 5.87 0.02* 5.22 4.89
only on their own accord for the respect the decisions for the
sake of reaching organizational sake of reaching the goals of
goals. the organization.
It is essential always to search It is important always to rely 8.46 0.04* 2.86 3.21
for new ways of reaching on proven methods and ways of
organizational goals. thinking which already certified
their efficiency.
Solving of problems arisen Effectiveness of the solution of 0.73 0.39 3.07 3.20
needs a very quick detection problems drops dramatically
of personal and organizational with constant detection of
deficiencies. personal and organizational
deficiencies.
Effective decision-making Effective decision-making has 6.14 0.01* 3.22 3.52
heads towards fully giving to be based on great respect to
up the traditional notion of traditional notion of creating
creating goals. goals.
The most suitable goals are The most suitable goals are 1.66 0.20 3.96 3.76
always the result of a good idea always the result of a long-term
and instant inspiration. planning.
Significant if p<0.01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors

Distinctive exception is the question of accepting the goals of the organization, where
the managers clearly incline more to “automatic” acceptation by the employees,
what suppresses the possibilities to participate voluntarily (F=5.87 a p=0.02).
However, according to mean score the rate of acceptation is average to very low
(M= for NPS=5.22, M for PS=4.89); in case of voluntariness one could rather think
of disapproval with this mechanism in the case of UPS.
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 153

Table 10: Assessment of inclination of the managers to attribute of team learning

in solving unproblematic (NPS) and problematic situations (PS) without
regard to working area (MANOVA)
Team learning Mean
F p
Learning organization Bureaucracy NPS PS
Constant mutual cooperation For work and problem solving 2.83 0.09 2.36 2.54
of all is inevitable for work and it is important, that everybody
problem solving. is dedicated to his/her self-
dependent work.
When solving problems it is When solving problems it 0.32 0.57 2.93 2.86
suitable to use the potential of is suitable to cooperate with
all employees equally. employees who are constantly
the best ones.
Employees have to complement Fulfilling the tasks and solving 5.21 0.02* 2.68 3.03
each other constantly in the problems each employee
fulfilling the tasks and solving has to function fully self-
the problems. dependently.
For problem solving it is Independent decision-making is 3.44 0.07 2.97 3.26
inevitable to listen to co- inevitable for problem solving
workers very intensively. in any situation.
Problems arisen have to be Problems arisen have to be 3.23 0.07 2.86 3.22
analyzed deeply and in any solved quickly and without
case their true cause has to be indulging in useless analyses.
disclosed.
Integral part of the decision- Useless questions only make 2.52 0.11 2.42 2.75
making is acquisition of the process of decision-making
feedback from the employees longer and more complicated.
and the ability to ask questions.

Significant if p<0.01**, if p<0.05*

Source: authors

According to the mean score managers responded very positively to goal-setting

as a process open to participation of all employees – mainly in connection with
successful problem solving (M=2.46).
According to the data stated in Table 9 it can be established that the found and
described results are in accordance with assumption expressed in H5. Thus, in the
dimension of visions and goals, the manager’s decision-making character is closer to
learning attributes in case of a “happy end” solution than in a solution of unsuccessful
cases. In three out of 6 items this finding was in relation to researched differences
statistically important.
Team learning discipline emphasizes importance of group (team) in conditions of
organization when learning system is a permanent solution in relation organization
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
154 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

– team – individual. It enables to support cooperative mechanisms in organization

and broaden the learning space for dynamism dimension of identification with group
of co-workers. It shows importance of mutual cooperation at problem solution,
necessity to respect the potential of all employees, conscience of mutual dependence
of team members. A deep analysis of problem is important and careful searching of
causes but also maintaining of feedback flow and permanent information saturation
in team environment.
H6: We suppose, that the attributes of the organizational learning in managers’
decision-making in the discipline of the team learning will be attractive in the non-
problematic situation solving rather than in the problematic situation solving.
Team learning belongs to those attributes of organizational teaching, which shows
a relatively high rate of acceptation (Table 10), evidently especially in situations
that are being solved successfully at the end – the mean score of the items in this
discipline is between 2.36 and 2.97. It means, that the inclination to the learning
attributes in the problem solving is linked to the success end of the solving. Tendency
of differences between character of decision-making at NPS solution or PS solution
copies main trend when learning attributes are more attractive for managers in case
of NPS solution than PS solution. Statistically important differences in the rate of
inclination to team learning with regard to the character of the situation were found
at level of 3 out of 6 items. Most attractive attribute of team learning in decision-
making for managers was mutual cooperation moment. (M for NPS=2.36, M for
PS=2.54). Conversely, at least used was attribute of mutual dependence of team
members at using of “bas end” problems (M=3.26).
Found and presented results of data processing show that measure of manager
inclination to using of learning attributes in decision-making regarding problem
solving is higher in case of NPS solution than in case of PS solution. This finding is
in three out of 6 cases statistically important and agrees with assumption expressed
in H6.

6. Conclusion
The data on the character of decision-making in selected (challenged - problematic
and unchallenged – non-problematic) situations acquired and presented, signify
evident differences in the character of decision-making with respect to the measure of
inclination of the managers to attributes of organizational teaching or to bureaucratic
mechanisms. Tendencies in decision-making head towards using the tools of
organizational learning especially when linked to non-problematic situations, and
so solving such situations which have not been successful are usually connected to
using the tools of a classic bureaucracy.
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 155

This finding is in accordance with central hypothesis and confirms the assumption
that connects successful problem solutions with higher measure of inclination
to organization learning attributes in decision-making process rather than to
bureaucracy attributes. This tendency is not definite in all disciplines – it is most
significant in disciplines of team learning and system thinking, at least it is exhibited
in mental model discipline. According to the findings of our research, it can be said
that the inclination of the manager’s decision-making to the learning attributions is
the highest on the dimension of team learning. Managers in decision-making process
at problem solving don’t have definite attitude to learning attributes and their using is
not extremely attractive, rather average. In this sense the space of manager decision-
making area has very dynamic potential for development to using of more effective
tools characterizing operation of intelligent systems which respects high measure
of complexity in organizations. Presented analyses and their results brought some
interesting information that indicates several further possibilities for future analyses.
For further development of effectiveness of formal organizations in currently highly
dynamic world, their analysing is not just expected but also required.

References
Adler, P. (1995) “Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination: The Case
of the Design/Manufacturing Interface”. Organization Science, Vol. 6, No 1,
pp.147-167.
Adler, P., Borys, B. (1996) “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.41, No 1, pp.61-89.
Aiken, M., Bacharach, S.B., French, J.L. (1980) “Organizational Structure, Work
Process, and Proposal Making in Administrative Bureaucracies”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol.23, No 4, pp.631-652.
Almaney, A. (1974) “Communication and the Systems Theory of Organization”.
Journal of Business Communication, Vol.12, No 1, pp. 35-43.
Appelbaum, E., Batt, R. (1994) The New American Workplace. ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Applegate, L. (1998) “In Search of a New Organizational Model: Lessons from
the Field”. In: DeSanctis, G., Fulk, J. eds. Shaping Organization Form:
Communication, Connection and Community. Sage Newbury Park, CA.
Argyris, Ch., Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A  Theory of Action
Perspective. Addison – Wesley.
Baker, W.E., Sinkula, J.M. (1999) ” The Synergetic Effect of Market Orientation and
Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance”. Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 27, No 4, pp.411-427.
Barr, J., Saraceno, F. (2009) “Organization, Learning and Cooperation”. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol.70, No ½, pp. 39-53.
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
156 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Beauchamp-Akatova, E. (2009) “Toward Integrated Decision-Making for Adaptive

Learning: Evaluation of systems as fit for purpose”. Journal of Risk Reasearch,
Vol. 12, No ¾, pp. 361-373.
Barrados, M., Mayne, J. (1999) “Can Public Sector Organizations Learn?” OECD
Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 3, No 3, pp.87-103.
Blau, P.M. (1955) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Bolfíková, E. (2006) Post-bureaucratic organizations: social - political contexts
(specification for public administration). grant project VEGA 1/3589/06.
Bozeman, B., McAlpine, W.E. (1977) “Goals and Bureaucratic Decisionmaking: An
experiment”. Human Relations, Vol.5, No 3, pp.417-429.
Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z. (2008) “How Learning Leadership and Organizational
Learning From Failures Enhance Perceived Organizational Capacity to Adapt to
the Task Environment”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44, No 4,
pp.468-489.
Collins, L.M., Horn, J.L. (1991) Best Methods for the Analysis of Change.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cha, H.S., Pingry, D.E., Thatcher, M.E. (2008) “Managing the Knowledge Suply
Chain: An Organizational Learning Model of Information Technology Offshore
Outsourcing“, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32, No 2, pp.281-306.
Chiva, R., Alegre, J. (2008) “Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction: the Role of
Organizational Learning Capability”. Personal Review, Vol.37, No 6, pp.680-701.
Daft, R.L., Huber, G.P. (1987) “How Organizations Learned: A  Communication
Framework”. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 5, No 1, pp.1-36.
Dekker, S., Hansen, D.J. (2004) “Learning under Pressure: The Effects of Politization
on Organizational Learning in Public Bureaucracies”. Journal of Public
administration Research and Theory, Vol. 14, No 2, pp.211-132.
Dery, D. (1983) “Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Organizational Learning”.
Omega, Vol. 11, No 2, pp.321-328.
De Villiers, W.A. (2008) “The Learning Organization: Validity A Measuring
Instrument”. Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol.24, No 4, pp.11-22.
Dirani, K. (2009) “Measuring the Learning Orgnaization Culture, Organizational
Commitment and job satisfaction in the Lebanese Banking sector”. Human
Resource Development International, Vol.12, No 2, pp.189-208.
Dovey, K. (1997) “The Learning Organization and the Organization of Learning”.
Management Learning, Vol. 28, No 3, pp.331-349.
Crozier, M. (1964) Le Phénomene buraucratique. Paris.
Easterby-Smith, M., Li, S., Bartunek, J. (2009) “Research Methods for Organizational
Learning: The Transatlantic Gap”. Management Learning, Vol.40, No 4, pp. 439-
447.
Fiol, C., Lyles, M. (1985) “Organizational Learning”. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 10, No 6, pp.803-813.
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 157

Fry, B.R., Griswold, S.J. (2003) “Defining and Implementing the Learning
Organization: Some Strategic Limitations”. Public Administration Quarterly, Vol.
42, No 2, pp.311-335.
Garvin, D.A. (1993) “Building a Learning Organization”. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 71, No 2, pp.78-91.
Gittell, J.H. (2001) “Supervisory Span, Relational Coordination and Flight Departure
Performance: A Reassessment of Postbureaucracy Theory”. Organization
Science, Vol.12, No 4, pp.468-483.
Grant, D. (2009) “A Discourse-Based Theory of Organizational Change”. Academy of
Management Proceedings, pp.1-6.
Hahn, E.D., Doh, J.P., Bunyaratavej, K. (2009) “The Evolution of Risk in Information
Systems Offshoring: The Impact of Home Country Risk, Firm Learning, and
Competitive Dynamics”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33, No 3, pp.597-616.
Heckscher, C., Donnellon, A. (1994) The Post-Bureaucratic Organizations. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Heller, F., Yukl, G. (1969) “Participation, Managerial Decision-Making and
Situational Variables”. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4,
No 2, pp.227-241.
Hendry, C. (1996) “Understanding and Creating Whole Organization Change
Through Learning Theory”.Human Relations, Vol.49, No 5, pp.621-641.
Hickson, M. III. (1973) “The Open System Model: Auditing the Effectiveness of
Organizational Communication”. Journal of Business Communication, Vol.10,
No 3, pp.7-14.
Holmqvist, M. (2009) “Complicating the Organization: A New Prescription for the
Learning Organization?” Management Learning, Vol.40, No 3, pp.275-287.
Huber, G.P. (1991) “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the
Literatures”. Organization Science, Vol. 2, No 1, pp.88-115.
Hult, G. et all. (2000) “Organizational Learning in Global Purchasing: A Model and
Test of Internal Users and Corporate Buyers“, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31, No 2,
pp.293-325.
Josserand, E. (2006) “From Bureaucratic to Post-Bureaucratic: the Difficulties of
transition”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.19, No 1, pp.54-
64.
Kemmis, S. (1983) “Action Research”. In: Anderson, D., Blakers, C. eds. Youth,
Transition and Social Research.Canberra: ANU Press.
Lambert, G., Ouedraogo, N. (2008 “Empirical Investigation of ISO 9001
quality management systems’ impact on organizational learning and process
performances”. Total Quality Management, Vol. 19, No 10, pp.1071-1085.
Levit, B., March, J.G. (1988). “Organizational Learning”. Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 14, No 2, pp.319-340.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. (2000) “Organizational Learning in a Hospital”. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36, No 3, pp.345-361.
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
158 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Lundberg, C. (1995) “Learning in and by Organizations: Three Conceptual Issues”.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3, No 1, pp.10-23.
Marsick, V.J., Watkins, K.E. (1999) Facilitating Learning Organizations: Making
Learning Count. Brookfield, VT: Grower.
McElroy, M.W. “Integrating Complexity Theory, Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No 3,
pp.195-203.
Merton, R.K. (1952) Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Free Press.
Pahor, M., Škerlavaj, M., Dimolvski, V. (2008) “Evidence for the Network
Perspective on Organizational Learning”. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science & Technology, Vol.59, No 12, pp.1985-1994.
Park, S. (1996) Managing an Inter Organizational Network: A Framework of the
Institutional Machanism for Network Control”.Organization Studies, Vol.17, No
6, pp.795-824.
Peery, Jr., N.S. (1975) “General Systems Theory Approaches to Organizations:
Some Problems in Application”. Academy of Management Studies, Vol.12, No 3,
pp.266-275.
Rahmandad, H. (2008) “Effect of Delays on Complexity of Organizational learning”.
Management Science, Vol.54, No 7, pp.1297-1312.
Rubinstein, S. (2000) “Impact of Co-management on Quality Performance: The Case
of the Saturn Corporation”. Industrial Labor Relations Review, Vol.53, No 1,
pp.197-220.
Schilling, J., Kluge, A. (2009) “Barriers to Organizational Learning: An Integration
of Theory and Research”. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.11,
No 3, pp.337-360.
Schout, A. (2009) “Organizational Learning in the EU’s Multilevel Governance
System”. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.16, No 8, pp.1124-1144.
Selznick, P. (1943) “An Approach to a Theory of Bureaucracy”. Administrative
Science Review, Vol. 8, No 1, pp.47-54.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning
organization. London: Random House.
Smith, V. (1997) “New Forms of Work Organization”. Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol.23, No 2, pp.315-339.
Sta. Maria, R.F., Watkins, K.E. (2003) ” Perception of Learning Culture and Concerns
About the Innovation on its use: a  Question of Level of Analysis”. Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 6, No 4, pp.491-508.
Starbuck, W.H. (2009) “Cognitive REactions to Rare Events: Perceptions,
Uncertainty, and Learning”. Organization Science, Vol. 20, No 5, pp.925-937.
Stevenson, W.B., Gilly, M.C. (1993) “Problem Solving Networks in Organizations:
Intentional Design and Emergent Structure”. Social Science Research, Vol.22, No
1, pp.92-113.
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 159

Tell, J. (2000). “Learning Networks – A  Metaphor for Inter Organizational

Development in SMEs”. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1,
No 3, pp.303-317.
Tracy, L. (1993) “Applications of Living Systems Theory to the Study of Management
and Organizational Behavior”. Behavioral Science, Vol. 38, No 2, pp.218-230.
Tran, T. (2008) “A Conceptual Model of Learning Culture and Innovation Schema”.
Competitiveness Review, Vol.18, No 3, pp.287-299.
Vancouver, J.B. (1996) “Living Systems Theory as a  Paradigm for Organizational
Behavior: Understanding Humans Organizations, and Social Processes”.
Behavioral Science, Vol. 41, No 3 pp.165-194.
Vendelø, M.T. (2009) “Improvisation and Learning in Organizations – An
Opportunity for Future Empirical Research”. Management Learning, Vol.40,
No4, pp.449-456.
Zhao, J., de Pablos, P.O. (2009) “School Inovative Management Model and Strategies:
The Perspective of Organizational Learning”. Information Systems management,
Vol. 26, No 2, pp.241-251.
Zito, A.R. (2009) “European Agencies as Agents of Governance and EU Learning”.
Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.16, No 8, pp.1224-1243.
Waller, M.J. (1999) “The Timing of Adaptive Group Responses to Nonrutine events”.
Academy of Management Journal, Vol.42, No 2, pp.280-305.
Watkins, K.E., Golembiewski, R.T. (1995) ” Rethinking Organizational Development
for the Learning Organization”. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol.3, No 1, pp. 86-101.
Watkins, K.E., Marsick, V.J. (1996) Creating The Learning Organization. Alexandria,
VA:ASTD Press.
Weick, K.E., Quinn, R.E. (1999) “Organizational Change and Development”. Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol.50, pp.361-386.
Wenbin, N., Hongyi, S. (2009) “The Relationship Among Organizational Learning,
Continuous Improvement and performance improvement: An Evolutionary
Perspective”. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol.20, No10,
pp.1041-1054.
West, P. (1994). “The Concept of the Learning Organization”. Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 18, No 1, pp.15-21.
Wolfe, R.A. (1994) “Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and Suggested
Research Directions”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol.31, No 3, pp.405-427.
Wood, R.E., Bandura, A. (1989) “Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Selfregulatory
mechanisms and Complex Decision Making”. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 56, No 2, pp.407-415.
Wu, X., Ma, R., Xu, G. (2009) “Accelerating Secondary Innovation through
Organizational Learning: A Case Study and Theoretical Analysis”. Industry &
Innovation, Vol. 16, No 4/5, pp.389-409.
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
160 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Donošenje menadžerskih odluka u društvenim organizacijama –

empirijska analiza birokratskog pristupa nasuprot pristupa učenja
Eva Bolfíková1, Daniela Hrehová2, Jana Frenová3

Sažetak

Rad je usmjeren prema procesu donošenja odluka menadžera u odnosu na osnovni

model organizacijskog učenja prezentiranog od strane P. Sengea kao sistemski-
model menadžmenta. Empirijsko istraživanje provedeno je povezivanjem s ključnim
razinama organiziranog učenja: 1. sustavno razmišljanje, 2. osobno usavršavanje,
3. mentalni modeli, 4. grupno učenje, 5. ciljevi i zadaci i 6. dinamični uzroci s jedne
strane a s druge strane birokratska logika donošenja odluka koju karakterizira
nefunkcionalna stabilnost, nefleksibilnost, individualizam, snaga, autoritet i
hijerarhija, centralizacija, fragmentacija i neodređe­nost. Cilj istraživanja bio je
analizirati udio menadžereve orijentacije  prema donošenju odluka s korištenjem
birokratskih alata ili organizirano učenje uspoređujući problemsko i neproblemsko
odlučivanje. (MANOVA, metoda ponovljene mjere, intersubjektivni faktor  situacija:
1. neproblemska, 2. problemska). Zaključak analize jest da postoje značajne razlike
između tipova problemskog i neproblemskog odlučivanja: birokratski atributi
donošenja odluka mnogo su intenzivniji u problemskim situacijama, dok je pristup
povezan s učenjem mnogo češći kod neproblemskih situacija. Rezultati našeg
istraživanja ukazuju na činjenicu da su menadžeri mnogo uspješniji u rješavanju
problema koristeći atribute organizacijskog učenja prilikom donošenja odluka.
Ključne riječi: organizacijsko učenje, menadžersko donošenje odluka, birokracija
JEL klasifikacija: D73, D83

1
Docent, University Pavol Jozef Šafárik, Košice, Fakultet javne uprave, Katedra za društvene
studije. Popradská 66, 041 32 Košice, Slovačka. Znanstveni interes: organizacijska teorija,
kaos i kompleksnost u organizacijama, teorija javne uprave, birokracija, socijalna pravednost,
empirijska analiza u organizacijama. Tel.: +42 1055 7883632-34. E-mail: eva.bolfikova@upjs.
sk.
2
Docent, Tehničko sveučilište Košice, Katedra za društvene znanosti, Vysokoškolská 4,
040 01 Košice, Slovačka. Znanstveni interes: menadžment, marketing, poslovna etika, etika,
komunikacije. Tel.: +42 1903 147287. E-mail: daniela.hrehova@tuke.sk
3
Predavač, Sveučilište Presov, Fakultet menadžmenta, Námestie legionárov 3, 080 01 Prešov,
Slovačka. Znanstveni interes: menadžment, obrazovanja zaposlenika, projektni menadžment.
Tel: +42 1905 902083. E-mail: frenovajana@centrum.sk
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 161

Appendix

Scheme 1: The attributes of the organizational learning, or bureaucracy in decision

making of managers – Method – UO-1
Learning organization
It is important to monitor what is the
relation of problem being solved to
the rest of the environment, the whole
organization.
It is at the best to seek for a solution
that takes into account various relations,
links and connections within the
organization.
When solving a situation it is important
to keep in mind that the people around
it are active and vigorous.
When solving a situation it is always
inevitable to understand the problem in
a complex way.
Each solution has to be the result of
a mutual action of a manager on the
employees and vice versa.
Seeking for solution has to be the
matter of mutual influence of all who
participate in it.
Each decision has to have a positive
impact also in more far future.
Prime requisite of decision-making is to
inquire into the real primary causes.
The most effective decisions are the
ones that count on delayed effects and
implications.
Everybody, who makes decisions, has
to seek for capability and expertise in
the field.
If somebody makes decisions he/she
has to convince about what is important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 immediately has to find out what is
over and over again.
Scale Bureaucracy
It is important to stick intensively at
solving the problem itself only.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is at the best to seek for a solution
that applies solely to the problem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
itself.
When solving a situation it is
important to keep in mind, that the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 people around are mostly helpless
and can not handle the solution of the
situation by themselves.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When solving a situation it is always
inevitable to focus especially on the
details.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Each solution has to be directed
unambiguously from the manager to
the employees.
Seeking for solution has to be the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 matter of one person, as only the one
has the responsibility.
Each decision has primarily to bring
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 about instant improvement of the
situation.
In decision-making, especially the
visible effects and externally clear
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
situations have to be taken into
account.
The most effective solutions are the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ones that count on immediate effects
and implications.
Everybody, who makes decisions, has
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to have predominance over the other
employees.
If somebody makes decisions, he/she
steadily the most important.
 Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
162 Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163

Learning organization Scale Bureaucracy

Each decision-making is a creative
process and inventing something new.
Each decision-making is a creative
process and inventing something new.
Each problem arisen is to be understood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
as an ally and an opportunity.
When making decisions it is inevitable
to change the circumstances around
oneself constantly.
Decision-making has to be focused on
permanent change in routine order.
When making decisions it is necessary
to compare the goals set with the actual
status constantly.
Decision-making is about patience
above all.
To solve problems means to discover
and to constantly change the way of
functioning accepted by everybody.
When making-decisions it is necessary
to be constantly open to influence from
others.
From a long-term perspective it is
advisable to encourage situations which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 advisable not to invoke any un-
can bring about some changes.
Before making a decision it is necessary
to search for events that seemingly do
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not have any relation to solving the
problems.
With each decision it is necessary to
thing about the possibility of problems
emerging.
It is true, that for a solution of a
problem the least visible signs and
events are usually the most important.
It is of importance that each person
participating knows and understands all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
links and relations on the workplace.
Each decision-making is firstly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 about quick reaction on the incurred
problems and events.
Each decision-making is firstly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 about quick reaction on the incurred
problems and events.
Each problem arisen means trouble
for smooth workflow.
When making decisions it is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 inevitable to preserve a stabile
working environment.
Decision-making has to be focused
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
on active support to routine order.
When making decisions it is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 inevitable to follow the goal set under
any circumstances.
Decision-making is mainly about
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 quick reaction to situations and
problems arisen.
To solve problems means to ensure
efficient support and protection to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the ways of functioning accepted by
everybody.
When making-decisions it is necessary
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to function independently and to lock
out any external influence.
From a long-term perspective it is
necessary changes.
Searching for events that do no have
a direct relation to the problem being
solved is a waste of time.
It is not advisable to burden the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 decision-making with thoughts about
the possibility of problems emerging.
It is true, that for a solution of a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 problem the important events are the
ones most visible and obvious.
It is of importance that the one
who makes decisions and has the
responsibility knows all links and
relations on the workplace.
Eva Bolfíková et al. • Manager’s decision-making in organizations – empirical analysis...
Zb. rad. Ekon. fak. Rij. • 2010 • vol. 28 • sv. 1 • 135-163 163
Learning organization
Real problems are usually hidden and
silent and rarely come out.
Goals of the organization have always
to be open equally to all employees.
Employees can accept decisions only
on their own accord for the sake of
reaching organizational goals.
It is essential always to search for new
ways of reaching organizational goals.
Solving of problems arisen needs a
very quick detection of personal and
organizational deficiencies.
Effective decision-making heads
towards fully giving up the traditional
notion of creating goals.
The most suitable goals are always
the result of a good idea and instant
inspiration.
Constant mutual cooperation of all
is inevitable for work and problem
solving.
When solving problems it is suitable
to use the potential of all employees
equally.
Employees have to complement each
other constantly in fulfilling the tasks
and solving the problems.
For problem solving it is inevitable to
listen to co-workers very intensively.
Problems arisen have to be analyzed
deeply and in any case their true cause
has to be disclosed.
Integral part of the decision-making
is acquisition of feedback from the
employees and the ability to ask
questions.
Source: authors
Scale Bureaucracy
Real problems always come out in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
their essence very dramatically.
Goals of the organization are clear,
understandable and important only
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for those, who make the decisions
within the organization.
Employees are obliged to respect the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 decisions for the sake of reaching the
goals of the organization.
It is important always to rely on
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 proven methods and ways of thinking
which already certified their efficiency.
Effectiveness of the solution of
problems drops dramatically with
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
constant detection of personal and
organizational deficiencies.
Effective decision-making has to be
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 based on great respect to traditional
notion of creating goals.
The most suitable goals are always
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the result of a long-term planning.
For work and problem solving it
is important, that everybody is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dedicated to his/her self-dependent
work.
When solving problems it is suitable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to cooperate with employees who are
constantly the best ones.
Fulfilling the tasks and solving the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 problems each employee has to
function fully self-dependently.
Independent decision-making is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 inevitable for problem solving in any
situation.
Problems arisen have to be solved
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 quickly and without indulging in
useless analyses.
Useless questions only make the
process of decision-making longer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and more complicated.